5.  The applicant, who is of Serbian origin, was born in 1949 and lives in Vukovar.
6.  On 28 October 2004 the applicant submitted an application for the post of deputy county state attorney in the Vukovar County State Attorney’s Office. He relied on section 22(2) of the Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities and section 63(2) of the State Attorneys Act (see paragraphs 17 and 19 below).
7.  On 11 January 2005 the State Attorneys Council (Državnoodvjetničko vijeće), after a secret ballot, unanimously adopted a decision appointing D.K.I. deputy county state attorney in the Vukovar County State Attorney’s Office. It found that both candidates satisfied the statutory requirements to be appointed deputy state attorney but gave priority to D.K.I., having regard to her extensive experience of working on civil and administrative law cases. The decision contained an information notice (pouka o pravnom lijeku) to the effect that administrative dispute proceedings could be instituted against it by bringing an action in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) within thirty days of its service. The information notice reads as follows:
“Against this decision an administrative dispute may be instituted by bringing an action in the Administrative Court within thirty days of the service of the decision.”
8.  On 4 February 2005 the applicant instituted administrative dispute proceedings in the Administrative Court by bringing an action under section 23 of the Administrative Disputes Act (see paragraph 26 below) against the State Attorneys Council’s decision of 11 January 2005. He again relied on section 22(2) of the Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities.
9.  On 16 March 2005 the Administrative Court declared the applicant’s action inadmissible, finding that the contested decision did not constitute an “administrative act” within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Administrative Disputes Act (see paragraph 24 below). Therefore, instead of instituting administrative dispute proceedings by bringing an action (against an administrative act), the applicant should have lodged “a request for the protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right” (zahtjev za zaštitu ustavom zajamčenog prava), a remedy provided in section 66 of the Administrative Disputes Act (see paragraph 34 below). The Administrative Court also held that the applicant’s action could not have been, even in substance, regarded as such a request, because he had not relied on any provision of the Constitution, but only on the Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities.
10.  On 18 July 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the Administrative Court’s decision. In so doing the applicant, alleging a violation of his right of access to court, relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
11.  On 13 February 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. The relevant part of that decision reads as follows:
“The Constitutional Court finds that the complainant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were not breached in the proceedings before the Administrative Court because the Administrative Court did not proceed contrary to the legal views established by the European Court of Human Rights in the application of that provision to individual cases.
...
The Constitutional Court notes that in its practice it has established the rule that there is a remedy before the Administrative Court (a request under section 66 of the Administrative Disputes Act) against a decision on appointment of a deputy state attorney, and that this remedy has to be used before a constitutional complaint is lodged with the Constitutional Court (decision no. U-III-4364/2005 of 19 December 2005).”